Godspells

I just wanted to say that I thought this was a very gentle and wise post and I wanted to thank you for writing it. There is unfortunately a lot of really negative crap that comes out of the mouth of Christians regarding homosexuals, to the point that it is difficult to even be associated with the same faith as them. The Westburo Baptists are a particularly good example of this. Christianity is suppose to be about gentle albeit steadfast beliefs, but always done with love and care. Most of what I get from uber conservative Christians is a real homophobia and a complete indifference towards attaining a sense of higher understanding about the condition than "They're possessed by demons." It also still baffles me how people read Romans 1 and start spewing about how horrible gays are and then apparently miss Romans 2 which says straight up, "But you shall not judge them for you do the same things." And having compassion and understanding is not the same as condoning it. I go to a Methodist Church that is described as a "Reconciliator" which basically means they have full, 100% acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I myself am not comfortable with that position either, but I feel it is more helpful than the other end.

Golden Eagle, you posted several messages in series, so I'm going to address the main points in this one post to avoid confusing the topic. On Universal Reconciliation/Salvation There are essentially two flavors of this theory, the first is what is known as apocatastasis which roughly mean a return to the original state, specifically an "undoing" of the fall of man. A particular form of this theory was purported by Origen and it, along with several other theologies he purported, were condemned. The other flavor is what I would describe as a "hopeful" universalist. That is someone who hopes, and perhaps even faithfully believes, that ultimately everyone will be saved, but does not purport it as a dogma as Origen did. In that sense, it is more of conception people hold that they simply cannot understand how the Cross could fail to save everyone. It is, however, the admission of fallibility (that someone could be wrong, but with my current understanding this way makes the most sense) that ultimately makes this an acceptable theology. On Annihilationism The passage, "Fear not he who can destroy the body but not the soul, but rather fear He who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell (Gehenna)." That of course indicates that the principal punishment for apostasy or disbelief would be the eternal non-existence of the person. That fits well with the concept that the punishment for original sin is death. And in the case of Matthew 25, the punishment would indeed be eternal. That being said, I myself do not hold a belief in annihilation, simply because it does not have a strong root in Church tradition, although if someone believes in sola scriptura, I think annihilation could be considered a valid position. As to the Orthodox Opinion, that is literally the position held by most Orthodox Bishops. It is the prevailing opinion in the Church albeit unofficial. The Orthodox take a different approach to doctrinal theology than most western traditions (most describe western Catholics and the Protestants who came from them as utilizing scholasticism, while Orthodox believe in mystery). Though you misunderstood the position. Hades does not equate with Hell. Hades is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew Sheol, which means the common grave. Abraham and the Jews were cosigned to Hades within "Abraham's Bosom" and sheltered from the fire their until the death of our Lord and the harrowing of Hades. Now, those who die outside of the grace of God are cosigned there until the general judgment whereupon the unrighteous are subjected to the almighty presence of God, which for them, will be hellish. The main difference between Eastern and Western concepts of Hell are not so much this limited time in Hades, though, but whether or not Hell is eternal separation or eternal presentation from/to God. I find the western idea of a cosmic torture chamber to be a bit unseemly, and furthermore that the Eastern concept simply makes more sense.

Enoch, cut it out with the fallacies. Save that for the fundamentalists, okay? I respect science and if you point out to me some place where I've gone wrong I'll own up to it. Sticking to radiocarbon dating for the time being, I know the methods of Carbon-14 dating the best, and essentially I've heard opposing statements from creationists and naturalists about the accuracy. Since it is considered accurate by the scientific community at large, and since I am not trained in the science myself, I have to accept the general consensus. However, as I understand it, the first real evidence that the Earth was older than five or six thousand years was not radiocarbon dating, but a rock formation layered in such a way that made it impossible for the Earth to be any younger than a few million years. Since you have a good grip on the science I respect you position, even though I myself have a different one. But, I wonder, has a creationist ever rejected a scientific measurement that supported its theory? Because, certainly that would have to happen occasionally.

This isn't philosophy class. As I said previously, it is MY experience, you are welcome to provide a statistical study to the contrary. In any case, I was not asserting based on that fact alone that the theory is invalidated. I was merely pointing out a hypocrisy I have observed. Asserting that it is impossible to be entirely objective does not give license to propagate a bias. Even if perfect objectivity is impossible, I think you'd agree that a higher degree of objectivity on balance produces a higher degree of precision. Of course the classic examples are the disregard of radiocarbon dating and the assertion that the speed of light traveled faster in the past. While the latter is certainly possible, because there is not truly a reason to believe that it did outside of scripture, there isn't a reason to think it did scientifically.

Hey Jerry, you said “As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math” And I directed you to articles explaining the math (which you have apparently ignored) – as well as suggested authors who specifically deal in the mathematical side of the creationist models. In reality, no one ever questions the math (because no one is silly enough to publish unchecked formulas; especially not creationists who know that they will be highly scrutinized). “If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.” I suspect you have misunderstood the creationist model – which doesn’t claim this. But I could be equally obtuse and say – If one could show how the universe could suddenly inflate many times the speed of light, then suddenly slow, “it would go a long way toward their cause”. But that would require you being objectively sceptical of your own preferred, faith-based model. “Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science” Once again – if you understood how the secular models are formulated, you would not be so critical of the speculation involved in the construction of all cosmology models. But since you are obviously only willing to apply your high standards to models that disagree with you, you can do little but repeat Unsupported Assertions. In his 1973 book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking admitted, “we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology”. In an American Scientist profile (1995 Vol. 273(4)), George Ellis, the co-author of the abovementioned book, said “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” “Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct” Here you employ a logical fallacy known as Non-sequitur. You don’t “argue” to get published; you submit a manuscript. Editors have an absolute right to reject any publication for any reason they see fit (regardless of the integrity of the math). Since many editors have publically admitted their confirmation bias against creationist manuscripts, your veiled Appeal to Authority renders your argument to be specious. Journals have limited publication space and generally only accept about 30% of submissions for publication anyway (even less for better known journals). So many articles, including those with correct math, are not published. There is no obligation whatsoever for a journal editor to publish a manuscript based on the correctness of the math. Even so, when it comes to considering cosmology models, no one ever argues over the correctness of the math. Arguments stem from whether the particular use of math is logically justified. Consider an alternative secular model found here; [http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf] This (2010) model revisits an older idea of an infinite universe. The math is consistent with observations (and does ot require the existence of Dark Matter) – it just operates on different set of assumptions to the Standard Model. It is not the math that is in dispute; it is the logical justifications which deviate from the Standard Model that are questioned. Note that it also contains 26 pages of pure mathematical equation. And this is just the formula that deviates from the Standard Model. You seem to think you have formulated an effective ‘gotcha’ by requesting a single mathematical variable for our cosmology model. But anyone who comprehends the complexity of mathematical cosmology models would be aware that such a variable in the absence of the model would be ridiculously uninformative. So either you yourself are uninformed concerning the complexity of cosmology models, or you are dishonestly trying to create the false impression of a solid argument – in the hope that none of the audience has the capacity to see through it. Hi Tristen, I wanted to say that I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. I find that usually the most adamant proponents of creationist theory no nothing about the science of naturalist theory. That being said, what I have found that concerns me, is that many creationist scientists promote their theories behind the veil of Biblical infallibility. So for instance, they look at Genesis, determine what the theory is, then go out and look for evidence that promotes it, then say that it must be right because it is from the Bible. The reason that I think this undermines both the integrity of the scientific method and that of personal faith, is because for one, the scientific method usually requires hypothesis, observation, theory, but creationist work in reverse. They cannot arrive at a theory contrary to the original hypothesis based on observations, because to do so would constitute apostasy in their opinion. It also undermines faith in that it requires them to abandon the very principle of faith, mystery. When St. Thomas denied Christ had risen, Christ revealed Himself to him, and then said, "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." I find the faith of scientists who can approach a subject without the predisposition and still maintain faith as more inspirational than those who do so with the predisposition. And one must recognize the possibility of metaphor, otherwise we would be purporting that the Earth is flat the sun revolves around us. I would say that creationists are akin to a Christian saying simply denying that people suffer because they don't understand why God allows suffering. Likewise, when we make an observation contrary to faith as a creationist understands it, they simply deny that the observation was made. I focus on reconciling my fallible understanding of the Bible with my equally fallible understanding of science, hopefully reaching a intelligent and faithful conclusion that agrees with my heart.

Since Jesus Hebrew name, Yeshua, has a meaning, which is 'salvation', there are verses in which the meaning is used in a word play. Matthew 1:21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Truthfully, calling Him Jesus because He will save His people, is not very clear as to the meaning, but, if it read, you shall call His name Yeshua (salvation), for He will save His people. Then the verse and name make more sense. As far as salvation, Jesus or Yeshua, one is saved by the Messiah who died for sin and rose again, not by pronunciation of their name. That's interesting. I notice that seems to happen a lot, we sort of miss things in translation. For instance Peter means rock, and Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church", the meaning seems more poetic and profound knowing that aspect (even if you think it was Peter's revelation that is the rock).

Indeed. The ancient Hebrews had no concept of hell. And I think immortality of the soul being the default state of humanity has been accepted as a given in Christianity even though that is not clear. But then again, tradition has overwhelmingly held eternal torment. Annihilation, though, does not discount hell, it simply perceives that the soul is destroyed in hell and therein lies the eternal punishment. That doctrine fits quite well with the scriptures that otherwise indicate something contrary to eternal torment. I myself hold the Orthodox opinion that the unrighteous are temporarily cosigned to hades until the resurrection, upon which whatever state we have assigned ourselves to in this life, either self-serving or God-serving will determine how we experience the everlasting presence of God (i.e. hell or heaven). As CS Lewis contended, there are two types of people, those who say to God, "Thy Will be done" and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done". I also assert that hell is consequential not punitive. It is, in a sense, the terminal stage of a disease called sin. Not the retribution of an angry God.

I assume you are a Calvinist, which I am not, so we will probably not come to an understanding here, but nevertheless, I will address your assertions. In the early Church the term "Catholic" was applied which means universal, that is Christianity is a universal, world-wide religion, and the first one ever such. Christ died so that "whosoever believes in Him" has eternal life. The death was for all humanity should we choose to accept it. God does desire all to be saved, in fact it says the phrase almost verbatim. I believe that when someone repents and turns to God, it glorifies Him. If everyone repents and turns to God, how much more would that glorify Him? That is my logic, and perhaps I miss a key element, but I'm not pretending to be infallible.

But it doesn't teach that, that's where people err. If it doesn't, then it has the same effect as the opposite teaching. Of course traditional Christianity does not hold OSAS. If as a Christian you commit Mortal Sin, you turn yourself away from the grace of God and need to repent to come back into that grace. But it's not like you just lose salvation arbitrarily. It's only lost if you decide to serve sin instead of God. But you can always come back.

The cross created an ark of salvation and its capacity is enough to save EVERYONE. I hope everyone makes it as all Christians should. And presently I know no other way that God will be properly glorified, but I think that with a fallible human mind and I could be wrong. In any case, Annihilation theology fits scriptural doctrine fairly well including Mathew 25.

OSAS In my opinion teaches that after baptism you can go on and do whatever you want, which I think is errenous. We are bought by God through the blood of Christ, and thus are called to honor that sacrifice by serving God. Squandering that gift, IMO, brings upon risk of loosing salvation.

It seems recently a lot of stirring on this subject has occurred. I'm always interested to find Christian's perspective on the afterlife. I particularly find the arguments for annihilation, and I myself hopefully believe in universal reconciliation. What are you're thoughts about where we go when we die?

That's a really interesting post. However, in my opinion it is not all that important how one pronounces it, because His name was not pronounced by the ancient Hebrews. And even today I am very uncomfortable saying the name, even if it is mispronounced. The Tetragram, however would be the most accurate depiction, however, even the name is usually rendered "I am what I am" which is wholly mysterious and incomprehensible. I think as far as the names of God go, our Lord Jesus is the best depiction we have, because He, afterall, is the image of the invisible God. Interestingly, and this is something I learned recently. The tetragram is often used in describing God the Father, but in actuality the name describes the Holy Trinity. Also, Jesus's name can also be called "Joshua".